Five members from Canada’s 2018 world junior team (Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote and Formenton) told to surrender to police, facing sexual assault charges

[ERYX]

You seem to be willing to throw out the presumption of innocence based upon the word of an individual - I am not. There is a reason individuals that feel the way you do rarely make it to juries - you simply couldn't be impartial.

Actually in Canada it will be very easy for such people to end up on a jury.

Unlike in the U.S., there is almost no questioning of potential jurors. The only acceptable questions I've seen are questions about racial prejudice where the accused is non-white. Otherwise, it's pretty much the first 12 names that come out of the drum, that's your jury. A bit simplified, but essentially accurate for 99% of cases in my experience.

In cases of this nature, the judge will frequently ask potential jurors if they feel they can judge a case like this impartially. Very easy for someone who just wants to hang a guy say "yes, your honour". Defence counsel (or Crown) have no ability to ask more questions to test that.

We don't even have peremptory challenges anymore (where counsel basically get to "veto" any juror without giving any reasons) as those were removed after the Gerald Stanley case because --without ever checking the actual composition of his jury -- it was claimed that he was only acquitted because the jury was all white men and apparently this was accomplished through peremptory challenges.

 

[roon]

With respect you have no idea how juries are selected in Canada.

There's no questioning (absent a challenge for cause), and no pre-emptory challenges. If you show up and your name is selected, unless you try to plead to be excused you're on the jury.

With respect - The United States has a fundamentally better legal system for reasons such as this.

 

[Old Gregg]

Multiple articles available through a simple google search...

Direct quote to a crying young woman: "Say it."

If the conclusion you draw from this, having truly scoured all the publicly available evidence, is that the police and hockey Canada thoroughly investigated this and found the evidence wanting, I don't know what to say. The incident was reported to police within hours of it happening, and there has clearly been an effort to protect these players from facing full consequences. We know about Hockey Canada's "slush fund" to pay off sexual assault victims, and it has only been due to the public outcry that the police have finally begun to treat this incident as seriously as it deserved to be treated from day 1.

There is no question at all that this is not a "wild night someone regrets" kind of situation - it's a gang rape that was immediately reported to police after the victim's parents found her shaking uncontrollably and barely coherent in a deeply traumatized state that was then ignored by the authorities until some good journalism unearthed and publicized the facts.

Do you have a link for this info? I haven't read this from what I could find

 

[Korpse]

Do you have a link for this info? I haven't read this from what I could find

Court filing reveals new details about alleged Hockey Canada group sexual assault

Some sections of the document have been redacted, but it provides the fullest picture to date of what allegedly transpired in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018

www.theglobeandmail.com

"Her mother told police that around 5 a.m. she found E.M. in the shower with the water running, “seated clasping her knees and rocking back and forth,” the filing says, paraphrasing her mother. It was E.M.’s mother who reported the events to the London police. Her husband also contacted someone at Hockey Canada. He passed along a photo of Player 1 taken at Jack’s on the night of the alleged attack."

 

[ERYX]

With respect - The United States has a fundamentally better legal system for reasons such as this.

I agree, the U.S. gets jury selection right, and Canada gets it wrong IMO.

I watched the Derek Chauvin trial in almost its entirety. I was very impressed with the jury selection process down there, I thought it resulted in the most fair jury a human system could achieve.

 

[Konnan511]

No, with respect I don't think so.

Two different things can be true at the same time. "Men should not rape women" and "women should avoid putting themselves in vulnerable situations" can both be true.

Uh what?

This is an incredibly bad take and it's a common remark from the people who idolize Tate and Trump. If a woman decides to walk around naked, that doesn't give men the right to SA her. Women deserve every right to have the same amount of fun at a party as men do, period.

You are right, two things can be true. "Men should not rape women" and "friends shouldn't let their friends rape women".

 

[RooBicks]

Court filing reveals new details about alleged Hockey Canada group sexual assault

Some sections of the document have been redacted, but it provides the fullest picture to date of what allegedly transpired in the early morning hours of June 19, 2018

www.theglobeandmail.com

"Her mother told police that around 5 a.m. she found E.M. in the shower with the water running, “seated clasping her knees and rocking back and forth,” the filing says, paraphrasing her mother. It was E.M.’s mother who reported the events to the London police. Her husband also contacted someone at Hockey Canada. He passed along a photo of Player 1 taken at Jack’s on the night of the alleged attack."

Thanks. This needs to be front and center in the discussion. If she's lying, then so are her parents, who found her very early the next morning in an absolute state. I just don't see it. This woman was traumatized due to being gang raped, and it's disgusting to imply anything else. I'm fine with "letting the courts do their job" - people can take that tack if they want - but impugning her character with the bogus supposition that she's lying and probably "wanted it" given all the facts that are available is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Moon Man]

Good god...depressing to see these sorts of conversations taking place, year after year, on places such as here or twitter or reddit practically every time sexual assault occurs.


My dude, women have messages of this sort -- and a whole bunch of others (e.g. 'don't walk alone,' 'make sure you're not followed when you get off the metro,' etc.) ingrained into them since literal childhood. They don't need to hear this anymore. Like, literally every woman I know has heard this sort of "helpful" advice their entire life. I don't think there is a woman in the U.S. or Canada who will be like "oh shit, really??" if given these sorts of "helpful" preventative tips. And a woman should be freely able to get drunk at what was supposed to be a nice safe gala celebrating a championship without worrying about her freaking physical safety.

Avs44, a world where people, not just women, could live freely and not take conscious awareness of our surroundings seriously, would be a wonderful joy to live in.

Perhaps things may have been relatively safer in the past, but our world to me is becoming more and more dangerous, that wonderful joyous potential world is falling further from our grasp, this is more of a societal topic of discussion, but it is worth mentioning.

For people to always understand the environment that surrounds them, is very important for personal safety. It is one of the very most important self defense tips I can think of. As a man, I do, for not only myself, but for the people who I am with. As a person, I am not angered or upset at people, including myself, being reminded to.

I understand the point that you are getting across. However, if we want to get blasted drunk, I have no idea if she was or not, but if we want to do that, there are serious risks to it, in any setting.

 

[4thline]

Well, in Canadian law there's no such thing as tacit or implied consent. There must be communicated consent or, at minimum, "an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent". The consent doesn't necessarily have to be verbal, but there has to be some clearly communicated consent and "reasonable steps" must have been taken to confirm that consent.

The linked article claims that there are videos showing the complainant saying she was "okay with this" which if actually true, would be communicated consent it seems to me. I appreciate that she says she just said this because she felt she had no choice, a judge or jury will have to judge for themselves based on the actual videos.

Does consent not also have to be continuing?

The Criminal Code also says there is no consent when:

• Someone says or does something that shows they are not consenting to an activity
• Someone says or does something to show they are not agreeing to continue an activity that has already started

A person cannot say they mistakenly believed a person was consenting if:

• that belief is based on their own intoxication; or
• they were reckless about whether the person was consenting or;
• they chose to ignore things that would tell them there was a lack of consent; or
• they didn’t take proper steps to check if there was consent.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the "Before" video can/could be accepted as perfectly legitimate communicated consent, her later becoming upset crying/ wanting to stop would nullify the pre-existing communicated consent, and they would have a duty to stop.

Where does the law stand on 5 guys "convincing" someone that withdrew consent to "reconsent"?

 

[Golden_Jet]

I've never in my life heard of "sex assault level 1".

But you are correct - the charges are s. 271 sexual assault, s. 272 sex assault cause bodily harm/with a weapon/choking, and s. 273 aggravated sexual assault.

Ya , I was just trying to be descriptive I guess, but yes 271, 272 and 273.

 

[Slats432]

It took 5 years for authorities to find enough of this overwhelming evidence to file charges?

It took one reporter (Rick Westhead) to blow up the cover-up, and the real investigation started July 7, 2022.

 

[Danarqhy]

It is not entirely clear from that article which details are allegations by police/the complainant, and what details were actually admitted by the players. Although it is clear that several of these guys gave statements to police which is generally not a good thing if one is hoping to be acquitted. They got bad advice (in my view) from whoever told them to talk to police (maybe they didn't seek legal advice first).

This is why trials are needed, to see what the actual details were. There certainly appears to be acknowledgement/admission of some broader details such as how she met player 1, that they went back to his room, and that a bunch of other players showed up afterwards. I don't see anyone admitting to rape.



Well, in Canadian law there's no such thing as tacit or implied consent. There must be communicated consent or, at minimum, "an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent". The consent doesn't necessarily have to be verbal, but there has to be some clearly communicated consent and "reasonable steps" must have been taken to confirm that consent.

The linked article claims that there are videos showing the complainant saying she was "okay with this" which if actually true, would be communicated consent it seems to me. I appreciate that she says she just said this because she felt she had no choice, a judge or jury will have to judge for themselves based on the actual videos.

The article makes clear which ones are statements by the players, just have to scroll down. And yes, of course no one admitted to rape, that would obviously be a slam dunk case. Point was that some of the facts about what happened have been shared and agreed upon or at least not disputed, and some of the facts coming from the players involved such as player 2 not even talking to E.M. before engaging in sex are pretty disturbing. The videos were allegedly recorded after the acts started, so of course it'll be up to a jury to determine just how much sway they need to have.

 

[StrompTroller]

I'm this close to being in favour of ending junior hockey period.

I'm sick to my stomach reading.


People painted NBA and NFL players as all bad for years. With the NFL it was warranted, NBA players not so much. Hockey fans did it a lot. Not the shoe is on the other foot. Maybe stereotypes aren't great, but people should have learned that before this scandal happened.

Pick a random example....Ruggs

This isn't even close to as bad as that was. I honestly don't even know what you're talking about. You decided to pick a fight and throw lemons at apples and limes and oranges.

 

[ERYX]

Does consent not also have to be continuing?

The Criminal Code also says there is no consent when:

• Someone says or does something that shows they are not consenting to an activity
• Someone says or does something to show they are not agreeing to continue an activity that has already started

A person cannot say they mistakenly believed a person was consenting if:

• that belief is based on their own intoxication; or
• they were reckless about whether the person was consenting or;
• they chose to ignore things that would tell them there was a lack of consent; or
• they didn’t take proper steps to check if there was consent.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the "Before" video can be accepted as perfectly legitimate communicated consent, her later becoming upset crying/ wanting to stop would nullify the pre-existing communicated consent, and they would have a duty to stop?

Where does the law stand on 5 guys "convincing" someone that withdrew consent to "reconsent"?

Yes, it has to be continuing and can be revoked at any time.

Without getting into a whole "master class" on Canadian criminal law as it applies to sexual assaults, you are correct that crying later could nullify previous consent and would certainly have required further "reasonable steps" to a determine whether there was ongoing consent.

Consent can also vitiated if it involves "convincing" (see subsection c below). s. 273.1(2) of the Criminal Code states:

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), no consent is obtained if

• (a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
• (a.1) the complainant is unconscious;
• (b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity for any reason other than the one referred to in paragraph (a.1);
• (c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;
• (d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
• (e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.

 

[archangel2]

that does pose the question, when did London PD get the info, if soon after why no charges till now?

that is the problem. The words COVER UP, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and other things are being suggested. I am the only non-lawyer on the board by the look of it, but I have been through the legal system on a few occasions and I think MANY are getting Canadian Law confused with American law.

But what most disgusts me about this thread is how the actual victim is being questioned. For those questioning the victim, she did not bring the charges and had to answer questions about what happened, But here is the question. Hockey Canada was very quick to settle the civil lawsuit in attempt to make this go away. Why? Whatever happened they wanted this to go away fast

And the fact Formenton has turned himself in I believe we can now talk about him? We get to ask more questions. Like he spent a 1.5 years in Europe after coming off an 18 goal season as a 21 year old. This was before the sens were in cap problems. Did the the Sense know and what did they know and when did they know it? Then you have 31 other teams. None wanted a 21 year old 18 goal scorer? None tried to trade for him? Did all 31 nhl teams know this day was coming?

I have more questions than answers. But one answer I do have is, posters need to get a better grasp of Canadian law over US law on this subject. Many of the legal views I am reading are clearly based upon peoples view of US law and not Canadian law.

​

 

[Edgelord]

You're one of the worst posters in this thread in regards to anything useful. You come in trying to act like some beacon of knowledge yet consistently you're out of line. Your name is so fitting.

I'm not gonna speculate, but Feb 5 will be an interesting day. As an astrologer, I can say some interesting things will be brought to light.

Did you really just say I brought nothing useful than said the bold part?

 

[Ninety7]

Uh what?

This is an incredibly bad take and it's a common remark from the people who idolize Tate and Trump. If a woman decides to walk around naked, that doesn't give men the right to SA her. Women deserve every right to have the same amount of fun at a party as men do, period.

You are right, two things can be true. "Men should not rape women" and "friends shouldn't let their friends rape women".

Haven’t you heard? We live in cotton candy land because it’s unreasonable to think that a girl can have a wild night of drinking at a BAR, while not putting herself in a vulnerable position to be raped

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Folks, I realize that it's difficult, but please treat one another as colleagues (even if you have to fake it to do so).

We're trying to let this run as free as we can, but you need to be nice.

 

[archangel2]

Why just Hockey Canada? Genuinely curious if that is the first step for a victim in this instance? I would think it could have been a criminal matter from the start?

you skipped the word RELAUNCHED. There was a complaint filed and why it was not taken more seriously is the question. The words cover up and obstruction of justice are part of what is being part of what is being asked of Hockey Canada right now, Hockey Canada did talk to the police right after the incident. I would love to see the notes from that meeting. I think both Hockey Canada and a certain police force will be asked to explain what they did and why

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Avs44, a world where people, not just women, could live freely and not take conscious awareness of our surroundings seriously, would be a wonderful joy to live in.

Perhaps things may have been relatively safer in the past, but our world to me is becoming more and more dangerous, that wonderful joyous potential world is falling further from our grasp, this is more of a societal topic of discussion, but it is worth mentioning.

For people to always understand the environment that surrounds them, is very important for personal safety. It is one of the very most important self defense tips I can think of. As a man, I do, for not only myself, but for the people who I am with. As a person, I am not angered or upset at people, including myself, being reminded to.

I understand the point that you are getting across. However, if we want to get blasted drunk, I have no idea if she was or not, but if we want to do that, there are serious risks to it, in any setting.

This is well written and an excellent, fair point imo.

I liked the post you replied to and agreed with that their point was, but this is a good side point imo.

The bolded is EXACTLY why I straight up will just never take substances in public that far. Ever. It's flat out not worth the risks imo and I say that as a man. I heavily encourage the people around me to take the same precautions and will actively keep an eye out for them if they do take it too far.

People are just too f***ed up to trust the gen pop like that imo.

All that said, it's still 100% the transgressor's fault.

 

[PunchImlach is Alive]

I’m sure there is a good reason this case wasn’t solved in 2018, and is only leading to arrests now, once the players careers were continued and money has been made, I’m sure there is, but I’m just ignorant of that reason.

Not suggesting anything, I just think that from the ‘money chasing’ angle it’s an interesting fact

There's better ways for "money chasing" that don't subject yourself to humiliating details being aired in public. Do you think it's possible the victim could have had ways to earn a living on their own without going through any of this? Not suggesting anything. I just think that's interesting to think about.

 

[Edgelord]

Uh what?

This is an incredibly bad take and it's a common remark from the people who idolize Tate and Trump. If a woman decides to walk around naked, that doesn't give men the right to SA her. Women deserve every right to have the same amount of fun at a party as men do, period.

You are right, two things can be true. "Men should not rape women" and "friends shouldn't let their friends rape women".

It almost feels like you're looking for clues in people's posts so you can deduce other facets and then decide who you agree with.

I also don't understand why avoiding risk is such a taboo
We all know men shouldn't rape, we all want it not to happen but it does. So all we can do is teach and minimize risk factors

 

[RooBicks]

Haven’t you heard? We live in cotton candy land because it’s unreasonable to think that a girl can have a wild night of drinking at a BAR, while not putting herself in a vulnerable position to be raped

Nobody reasonable is saying anything of the sort. It doesn't mean there was no crime committed. Getting very drunk in a public place doesn't provide a license for gang rape. Full stop.

Arguing this point is completely stupid and beside the point.

If truly desperate to find a way to defend the players, take issue with the evidence we currently have, which includes (paraphrasing) "her parents found her at 5am shaking uncontrollably in the shower and immediately contacted authorities." Good luck.

 

[Slats432]

Haven’t you heard? We live in cotton candy land because it’s unreasonable to think that a girl can have a wild night of drinking at a BAR, while not putting herself in a vulnerable position to be raped

This position is a problem. Based on previously published testimony, the girl was drinking, was taken back to a hotel willingly, and willingly engaged in sexual conduct with the first player. It was when other players became part of the situation is when the accused rape began.

It is often purveyed that due to attire and situation that women put themselves in vulnerable positions. That doesn't matter, you aren't allowed to do something against someone's will, intimidated them, etc.

 

[Edgelord]

Haven’t you heard? We live in cotton candy land because it’s unreasonable to think that a girl can have a wild night of drinking at a BAR, while not putting herself in a vulnerable position to be raped

It feels like you're mixing up what we want and what the unfortunate reality is